tv [untitled] February 7, 2011 2:30am-3:00am PST
how can we do that? how can we make conditions of approval and require people to do things and then change our minds? article 19 in the guidelines, the exceptions for class 3. these are qualified by consideration where the project is to be located. thieves might read as a historic district and be significant. these are significant except where the project might be an environmental resource.
not only was the study area rich in 19th century buildings and historic resources but only excluded two of the lots from the potential historic district and that he found. what unusual circumstances are there here? we have been building that was made it to the secretary of the interior. there was a prior deal which was required and it was thrown out. the developer settled and then exceeds the scope of work. i will answer any questions. >> are there any questions? >> but moved to public comment for individuals who wish to speak on behalf of the appellant? i have a number of speaker
cards. if anyone else wishes to speak, stepped up to the microphone. she >> i live in two places up. over the last -- there has been a blight in my neighborhood that has affected my home, the project of where i live. i'm there because frankly i don't feel i have been represented either from the planning department or the
russian hill neighbors or any of those who i thought would protect me or would do battle on my behalf. the project here that we are discussing today will be to my back garden and it will have a huge effect on my property. we are not here to debate about those specific things but rather we are looking at the eia our report. the supervisors have gotten numerous e-mails from a number of people in the neighborhood who were not in favor of this project as it stands. there is a huge following of people were not following. i think the only prudent thing
i asked you to overturn the categorical exemption for this property. how can in 1876 house not be protected? how is it allowed to fall into disrepair? how was allowed to be destroyed? this is a potential historic district. any project on this side must have environmental review. this is a citywide problem. i ask you, what kind of city do you want to live-in? is growth and development of the
the proposition of the construction of this house and replacing it with nearly 6000 square feet of development is somehow are consistent with the development patterns of our neighborhood and this is preposterous on its face. this neighborhood is not only a range, they will renew the site today plo. this is a neighborhood where it is 50% open space. the density on the other lots is less than 100%. this would be 200%. this is what has become an ad hoc rezoning of this neighborhood. this is setting the stage for
identification of the development of this neighborhood. on this property, i have a 28 ft square-foot -- i have a 28 foot building. why couldn't the residence be doubled in size and at two force -- and add two floors? why couldn't someone come in after this president has been set and we will have an intensification of the entire neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker.
>> the process has failed. we are here to talk about environmental review. in light of the plans we are looking at, i would ask that the premise of your planning commission documents that set the stage for approving this project, he would look at this in light of where we live. is this compatible with the buildings? yes. does it respect the typography. yes.
oumight issue it is light and a rear not matching the autobiography. this is taller than the unit. each building is one story and a grade laureate -- lower. this is a character-defining feature and ask that you look at that in light of what you are currently approving. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker.
>> [inaudible] i lived next ti live in the cot. this is about to start and this is very exciting. during the process, owners get restless and they want to presume to go ahead with their project. they cannot want and less hoops to jump through. -- they don't want endless loops and to go through. it is worth at the time of the process not to have this
exemption from the review. this is important to investigate all parts of it. the project comes out better for the weight and i wanted to make sure that this was not a rush to get through the last thing that had to be conferred upon. thank you. >> thank you. >> i'm a member of the education action committee. one of the documents we have been involved with with many many years of looking at the architectural and historical resources of the sunset district.
a building that survived as long as this one has has historic meaning and it should not be removed without a very serious consideration. the project is being expanded from one small cottage to two very large houses. i would like to say that the planning department has more work to do and that includes environmental review. >> are there any other speakers on behalf of the appellant? okay, let's go to planning for a presentation of up to 10 minutes. >> good afternoon.
on understand you received over 275 pages of information regarding this appeal. you should have been two page appeal letter from the appellant and you should have something from the product sponsor. he should have a planning department appealed response and lastly he should have a late submission by the appellate which contains over 80 pages. because the planning department did not receive the late submission from the appellant until last friday, we did not have a chance to respond in writing. in today's presentation i will go over the issues brought before you in the letter.
there are two main points that i would like to go ahead and highlight in the response from the department and the first one is that large trade is not a historic resources. this is a two-story single- family dwelling located towards the real portion of an up sloping lot. -- the rear portion. the front portion was excavated in the 1990's. here is the approved plan for the 1980's project which shows the subject, this is the street. the areas shaded, the addition was added on to. what you see from the street is
a 1980's edition. here is another photograph of what currently exists on the property. as i mentioned, in 1990, the front portion of the lot was excavated and what they have today is a concrete parking pad and a series of concrete retaining walls. because of these changes, the department determined that this is not retained enough integrity to convey any historical significance and therefore is not historic resources for the purposes of ceqa. in order to qualify for the historic resource as defined by the california register, a building must have integrity and
a series of concrete retaining walls this no longer possesses the following aspects of integrity -- design, workmanship, setting, materials, to be assisted with the original building. the department does agree with the palette that the subject property is located in a historic district. the district was prepared in 2006 and adopted by the stark preservation commission in 2009. as discussed, the proposed project a demolished existing of historic, nanking to begin building and construct two new buildings, one of the front, one at the rear, is compatible with
an appropriate to the historic district. based upon the adopted statement, the significance for this district is the residential architecture which is represented by a wide range of times, structural types that predate the earthquake. the proposed project as designed would have a building at the front and at the rear. this matches the established pattern on the block and preserves the defining features of the district. the proposed building would be similar in height and massing and to the front and rear lot buildings on the block would have a flat roof which is the dominant form in the neighborhood and the style would be contemporary and would have wood-shingled citing,
ornamentation, traditional features. to summarize, and this does not retain the integrity and is not a historic resource. there have been four separate qualified consultants are experts who came to the same conclusion. we have the architectural consultant for the project sponsor, the author of the historic statement, the planning department presentation- preservation specialist, and the commission. while the appellate states said it will destroy the historic district, the planning department believes that the proposed project as design is compatible and will not cause an adverse impact. as designed, it would comply with the standards for treatment of historic properties.
as far as the issues that were brought by the appellant, there'd be an impact to the front garden which the appellate has said is significant for a historic district and the proposed project will conflict with or be in violation of the conditions with approval that was set in place in 1998, the planning department would like to respond with the following. as you can see from the photograph there is no garden. there are older cottages at the rear followed by new york structures at the front. there is no indications that the landscaping.
what makes it eligible is a residential architecture. the proposed project is not in violation of any conditions of approval. a permit was in fact granted to construct a new building. as evidenced by the history, that project was abandoned and was never completed. the permit has expired from the conditions of approval which it is including restoring the side and therefore along with that permit.
1271 lombard st. is a historically source. we don't believe that this would render the building in eligible for the california restaurant and therefore would not change the status of the building in any way, shape, or form. in conclusion, the department conducted an in-depth and thorough analysis and found that the building is not a historic resources. the project would not have an adverse impact to the district. the appellate has not provided any substantial evidence to refute the conclusions of the department. for reasons stated in this presentation, the ceqa determination finds the project is appropriately exempt from environmental review. the department recommends the
board of hold the determination of exemption from environmental review and deny the ceqa determination. supervisor campos: through the chair, a quick question. any response to this argument that what we are dealing with is a dispute among experts, and therefore you bear on the side of having an environmental review? i do not know what planning has to say about that. thank you. >> joy naverette of planning staff. we responded to that in our pocket. the substantial evidence rule is
the standard of review for determination of whether a building is a historic resource for the purposes of ceqa. it is not their argument that requires us to prepare an eir. in the city of fresno in 2008, the court concluded the substantial evidence rule and not the fair argument test applies to a local agency determination of whether a building that has not previously been determined eligible for the california register of historic resources has not otherwise been determined to be a historic resource, such as in this case. supervisor campos: your argument would be that there is no substantial advantage? >> correct, we have not been presented with any substantial evidence.
supervisor cohen: did the report also look at the potential impact of the new construction for surrounding properties that might be included in a new historic district? >> yes. the department invited the new project and took into consideration the offsite historic resources of any potential historic districts and considered that with the proposed project. president chiu: any follow up to your question? supervisor cohen: now that you call me, i think i will ask one more question. this building will be eligible
for the inclusion in that district, right ms. tam? >> this building is not a historic resource or a contributor to the district, but we do believe it is compatible with the district. president chiu: any additional questions to planning? seeing none, we will go to the real party of interest for a presentation of up to 10 minutes. >> i am rick gladstone. to my right is sam kelley, an attorney in my office to advise me on this for several years. as you know, the client provided a loan to the prior owner, who
intended to renovate it. he stopped making loan payments and abandoned the development. as a result, it is concrete open to the sidewalk. there are missing walls and also missing portions of ceilings. the building will come down and there will be new structures built. the prior developer was not sensitive to the neighbors. with no repayment of the loan, my client is allowed to defend any of their actions. it has been a long time to get to this hearing. the planning commission has met three times. it had to do a lot of due diligence. there was a lot of complexity. the russian hill neighborhood association -- we had to do a lot of due diligence. a lot of the clans are somewhat disturbing, if true.
-- it claims are somewhat disturbing, if true. the board spent a lot of time determining if they are. there was a full support of the neighborhood association and a unanimous vote of the planning commission to demolish the building. i remind you there was a unanimous vote of the historic preservation commission to approve this, and of the board of appeals to approve the variance for this project. although the decision is not based on popularity, my client is proud of the fact that all of the property owners who are adjacent are in full support of this, along with the 900-person- strong neighborhood association